Combined Load Test and NDE: Novel Method to Diagnose

and Load Rate Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges

with Serviceability Issues
Ikram Efaz, Ph.D., M.ASCE1; Nur Yazdani, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE2;
and Eyosias Beneberu, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Vibration of highway bridges, although often ignored, is a serviceability issue that may contribute to concrete deck cracking and
delamination. A recently constructed prestressed concrete bridge in the Dallas–Fort metroplex experienced extensive transverse deck cracks,
potholes, and excessive vibration. The bridge was load-rated employing a novel and combined Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) and load
test method. Ground Penetrating Radar scans showed satisfactory concrete cover for the top reinforcement in the deck, indicating negligible
surface wearing and construction error. Impact Echo scans of the top of the deck revealed severe concrete delamination at the top of the gird-
ers with fully cast-in-place (CIP) concrete and also at the interface of the precast deck panels and the CIP topping. The calculated neutral axis
depths of the composite girders using an initial and follow-up load test after about a year were found to be in the web, indicating only 59%
partially composite action. It was concluded that the excessive vibration was due to the deck delamination and the partial-composite action
that reduced the stiffness of the superstructure. Both the deck and the composite girders can safely carry HS-20 live loading as required by the
Texas Department of Transportation. However, the long-term bridge serviceability and durability could be compromised due to the concrete
degradation and loss of stiffness. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001939. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Bridge vibration; Serviceability; Combined Nondestructive Evaluation and load test; Concrete delamination; Partial-
composite action; Load factor method.

Background
According to the National Bridge Inventory (2017), out of
617,000 bridges in the United States, 46,154 are structurally defi-
cient. Almost 4 in 10 bridges are more than 50 years old, which
means an increasing number of bridges will need major rehabili-
tation soon (ASCE 2021). However, serviceability issues of these
bridges are often overlooked. For example, the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO 2017) contain only op-
tional deflection limits to control the vibration of highway brid-
ges. However, last few studies on the vibration parameters of
bridges, such as deflection, acceleration, velocity, and frequency,
found that AASHTO deflection limits are inadequate to control vi-
bration (Roeder et al. 2002; Barker and Barth 2013; Barker and
Staebler 2011; Gaunt and Sutton 1981; Fountain and Thunman
1987).
Vibration causes an increase in stresses, which is accounted for
by the dynamic amplification factor (AASHTO 2017). Several fac-
tors affect the vibration response of bridges, such as span length,
stiffness, and vehicle speed. Park et al. (2005) showed a strong
1
E.I.T., Tower Engineering Solutions, LLC, 1320 Greenway Dr.,
Irving, TX 75038.
2
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington, P. O. Box
19308, Arlington, TX 76019-0308.
3
Bridgefarmer & Associates, Inc., 2350 Valley View Lane, Dallas, TX
75234 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8122
-1985. Email: eyosias.beneberu@mavs.uta.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 8, 2022; approved on
June 7, 2022; published online on August 4, 2022. Discussion period open
until January 4, 2023; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, © ASCE,
ISSN 1084-0702.
correlation between the road surface roughness and the dynamic
impact factor of bridges through full-scale dynamic testing, while
another study by Kou and Dewolf (1997) reinforced the finding.
Awall et al. (2012) concluded that expansion joint defects greatly
impact bridge vibration and suggested frequent maintenance to re-
duce expansion joint bump heights.
Alampalli (2001) concluded that vibration severity is the
most significant parameter influencing bridge deck cracking,
particularly for long-span bridges. Like other types of cracking,
vibration-induced deck cracking and delamination can be inspected
and mapped using several Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) tech-
niques. Zaki et al. (2018) successfully used Ground Penetrating
Radar (GPR) to assess the presence of rebar corrosion in a concrete
slab. Similarly, Raju et al. (2018) and Hasan and Yazdani (2015)
quantitively related concrete rebar corrosion with the maximum re-
flected wave amplitude from GPR data. Hasan and Yazdani (2014)
also used GPR to evaluate reinforcement clear cover variation in a
new bridge deck and found that a significant portion (48%) had in-
adequate cover. It is evident that less concrete cover may result in
corrosion of reinforcement and excess cover tends to reduce mo-
ment capacity due to a reduced moment arm. Apart from GPR, Im-
pact Echo (IE) can be used to evaluate and detect possible
delamination in concrete bridge decks. Gucunski et al. (2005)
used IE and GPR on asphalt-overlaid bridge decks to estimate con-
crete deterioration and possible delamination. Similarly, Kee et al.
(2012) utilized air-coupled IE and Infrared Thermography (IR) on a
reinforced concrete bridge deck containing simulated delamination
and cracking defects. The results from both the NDE methods
showed good agreement with most of the actual defects. Gucunski
et al. (2008, 2009) proposed a new automated approach based on
three-dimensional IE data, which effectively enabled IE to be
used as a bridge deck sonar device.

© ASCE 04022097-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097

 NDE methods like GPR and IE can locate localized cracks
and delamination in the superstructure, while in situ load testing
can accurately determine bridge load-carrying capacity and
provide a better understanding of the load paths and their distri-
bution through the bridge components (Bujnakova et al. 2018;
Lichtenstein 1995). Diagnostic load tests are performed to deter-
mine bridge characteristics, load response, and distribution or to
validate analytical models (AASHTO 2017). Several Depart-
ment of Transportations (DOTs) across the United States have
been using diagnostic load testing effectively to evaluate condi-
tion assessment and load rating of existing bridges (Almomani
et al. 2020; Lucas et al. 2004; Hag-Elsafi and Kunin 2006;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Matta et al. 2005; Bettis 2020).
A newly constructed prestressed concrete girder bridge in the
Dallas-Fort Worth area was observed to have progressive crack-
ing and localized potholes on the deck due to excessive vibration
of the superstructure. Although it is likely that the existing com-
posite action between the deck and the girders in most concrete
bridges has never been 100% effective due to construction or de-
terioration issues, the relationship between possible partial deck-
girder composite action and excessive vibration in a concrete
bridge has never been established to date. The specific objectives
of this research were to: (1) Investigate the cause of bridge
vibration using a diagnostic load test and NDE; (2) Evaluate
any progressive deterioration by conducting a follow-up diagnos-
tic load test; and (3) Propose a novel technique of load rating of
the bridge girders and the deck combining the NDE and load
test data. No similar research was conducted in the past to learn
the cause of vibration for a newly constructed concrete bridge
using this approach. The current investigation sets a benchmark
that could eventually be used as a reference for future studies re-
garding prestressed concrete girder bridges with vibration issues
and their effective load rating.
Description of the Test Bridge
Built in 2011, the State Highway 75 (SH 75) Bridge over Wilson
Creek in McKinney, Texas, has both North Bound (NB) and
South Bound (SB) bridges, as shown in Fig. 1. The Texas
(b)
(a)
Fig. 1. SH-75 SB Bridge over Wilson Creek Bridge, McKinney, Texas: (a) location (map data © 2020 Google, INEGI); and (b) street view (image ©
2018 Google).
© ASCE 04022097-2
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097
Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT) local area office that
has jurisdiction over this bridge expressed concern about the exces-
sive vibrations. Therefore, upon the request of the TxDOT local
area office, a study team from the University of Texas at Arlington
initially visited the bridge site on January 29, 2018, and conducted
visual inspections. Extensive transverse and longitudinal cracks
were observed on top of the deck, together with a few patched pot-
holes. The SB bridge with four spans and carrying five lanes of traf-
fic was selected for this study. Specifically, span 3 was chosen for
evaluation since this span was observed to have the most number of
cracks and vibration intensity. The deck thickness was 216 mm,
consisting of composite cast-in-place (CIP) deck on precast pre-
stressed panels. The total width of the deck was 29.87 m measured
from outside of the traffic barriers. The bridge has 11 girders at a
spacing ranging from 2.74 to 2.9 m. The plan view, typical section
of TX54 prestressed girders, deck cross section with girder label-
ing, and precast prestressed deck panel details in span 3 are
shown in Fig. 2. The relevant material properties for span 3 per as-
built drawing are given in Table 1.
Extensive transverse and longitudinal cracks were observed on
top of the deck as shown by lighter shaded lines in Fig. 3(a). The
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) officials informed
the authors that a pothole appeared on top of the deck and was sub-
sequently repaired as shown in Fig. 3(b). In addition to the ob-
served deterioration, excessive vibration was also felt on the deck
as heavy traffic passed over the bridge. Because it is a fairly new
bridge, it was unusual for it to experience excessive vibration,
cracking, and potholes.
Nondestructive Evaluation Procedure
Truck-mounted GPR with two 2.6 GHz and one 400 MHz anten-
nae were used to scan the bridge deck at a speed of about 2.24 m/s
to determine the reinforcement cover and location as shown in
Fig. 4(a). The first antenna has a depth range of 0–305 mm,
while the latter has a depth range of 0–3.7 m. Both antennae
were used to cover multiple depths at the same time. This antenna
configuration saves time compared with the usual method of GPR
scanning with a tri-wheel pushcart using a single antenna. The IE
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 2. Span 3 of the SB Willson Creek Bridge: (a) plan view; (b) cross section of the TX54 girder; (c) transverse section; and (d) precast prestressed
deck panel details.

Table 1. Properties of concrete and steel system, shown in Fig. 4(b), was used to detect delamination in the
deck due to voids, honeycombs, and/or cracks.
Properties Value To facilitate the NDE work with an appropriate traffic lane clo-
′
Deck concrete compressive strength ( fc,deck ) 28 MPa sure, scanning was performed over three days. Lanes 1, 2, and 3
′
Girder concrete compressive strength ( fc,girder ) 43 MPa and the west side shoulder, as shown in Fig. 4(c), were scanned
Number of prestressing strands in each TX54 girder 50 on the first two days, and the remaining Lanes 4 and 5 and the
Strand size 13 mm east side shoulder were scanned on the third day. The IE data
Strand ultimate strength 1,862 MPa
were collected in a grid pattern, as shown in Fig. 5, by spot

© ASCE 04022097-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 3. Deterioration and repair on the deck: (a) visible cracks; and (b) repaired pothole.

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 4. NDE devices: (a) truck-mounted GPR; (b) Impact Echo (IE) (images by Ikram Efaz); and (c) lane configuration.

scanning at spacings ranging from 0.76 to 1.52 m, while the GPR
data were collected at a constant spacing of 1.52 m.
Load Test Procedure
A detailed plan was prepared for the instrumentation and static load
testing of Span 3 of the SB Bridge, as shown in Fig. 6(a). Only the
superstructure behavior was investigated. A total of 26 strain
gauges [Fig. 6(b)] and 12 rotational tiltmeters [Fig. 6(c)] were in-
stalled on the girders to monitor strain and rotation, respectively.
Some girders were equipped with both top and bottom strain
gauges to find the location of the neutral axis. The rotational tiltme-
ters were installed on six selected girders at 0.61 m from the center
of the bents. All the sensors were installed using a boom lift. The
installation procedure involved marking the mounting points,

© ASCE 04022097-4 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Working grid for IE scanning.
cleaning the concrete surface using acetone, and attaching the sen-
sors using an adhesive. The sensor installation did not require lane
closure since there was plenty of vehicular traffic-free space under
the bridge to move the boom lift and provide a safe working envi-
ronment. DS-50A and STS4 DAQ boxes were used to collect the
data from the instrumentation at a rate of 10 data per second.
The load testing was conducted on May 24, 2018, using three
trucks (A, B, and C), with weights shown in Table 2. The distance
between the front and the middle axles was 4.11 m, while the dis-
tance between the middle and the rear axles was 1.37 m, as shown
in Fig. 6(d). The trucks were provided by the TxDOT Dallas Dis-
trict and were filled with a dense material to yield the maximum
possible axle weights.
The beginning, middle, and end of the span, together with var-
ious paths for different truck runs, were marked on the day of the
load testing. Fig. 7(a) shows different paths, while Fig. 7(b)
shows Truck C in position for the crawl speed test as per the
AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO 2018). The
truck started before Bent 4 and stopped when it fully exited Bent
3. Two runs with different speeds were conducted along Paths
P1, P2, and P3 to verify the repeatability of the results. As
shown in Fig. 7(a), Path P1 was selected to produce maximum ef-
fect on the exterior Girder B1., while Paths P2 and P3 were selected
to find the effects on the interior Girders B2 to B10. The path de-
tails, speed, and truck wheel locations for each test are given in
Table 3. A stop location test, as shown in Fig. 7(c), was also per-
formed using three trucks moving side by side in Lanes 2, 3, and
4 to maximize the effect on the interior girders. The trucks were
moved to the midspan and stopped for about 20 s to obtain the re-
sponse of the bridge.
© ASCE 04022097-5
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097
To evaluate any time-dependent rate of deck deterioration, a
follow-up load test was conducted on October 7, 2019. An instru-
mentation scheme similar to the first load test was employed, ex-
cept that six additional strain gauges were installed on the deck
bottom. To obtain comparable data, trucks similar to the initial
load test were used [Fig. 6(d), Table 2]. However, the gross vehicle
weights of Trucks A and C from the initial load test were slightly
higher than the follow-up test. In addition, a procedure in terms
of load paths and speed of vehicles similar to the initial load test
was employed during the follow-up test.
Load Rating Methodology
The data from GPR, IE, and load tests were employed for the load
rating of the bridge. The first two were used for the deck, while the
last was used for the girders. Fig. 8 shows a flow chart demonstrat-
ing the proposed load rating methodology. The 2-D GPR contour
plot for the top reinforcement was divided into negative and pos-
itive moment regions, considering the contraflexure points of a
continuous deck. Then, the negative moment regions were ana-
lyzed in an image processing software (Image Color Extract
2016) to extract the percentage of different colors corresponding
to a range of values of the top mat reinforcement cover. The aver-
age reinforcement cover obtained from this process was used to
calculate the moment arm for the negative moment capacity of
the deck. Similarly, the 2-D IE contour map was divided into neg-
ative and positive moment regions and analyzed in the image pro-
cessing tool (Image Color Extract 2016). The percentages of light
shade indicating the presence of severe delamination in these two
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

(a)

(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Load test plan: (a) instrumentation plan; (b) attached strain gauge; (c) attached rotational tiltmeter; and (d) dimensions of the test trucks.

Table 2. Truck axle weights

Truck A (kN) Truck B (kN) Truck C (kN)

Gross and axle weights Initial test Follow-up test Initial test Follow-up test Initial test Follow-up test
Gross vehicle weight (GVW) 191 189 197 197 209 200
Axle 1 42 43 43 50 47 48
Axle 2 74 73 77 74 81 76
Axle 3 74 73 77 74 81 76

regions were then obtained. The deck’s calculated positive and
negative flexural capacities were reduced by the average of the
percentage delamination of the positive and negative regions. Fi-
nally, the rating factors for the two regions were calculated, and
the smallest of the two values governed the deck rating. For the
girder’s rating, the neutral axis (NA) depth calculated using
load testing strain data was employed in the capacity calculation
instead of the theoretical value. The percentage composite action
of the deck-girder system was estimated by comparing the NA
from the experiment with the theoretically calculated values as-
suming full- and noncomposite actions. The overall bridge rating
is the minimum rating of the girder and deck. The proposed

© ASCE 04022097-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

(a) (c)

Fig. 7. Load tests: (a) locations of the trucks; (b) crawl speed test; and (c) stop location test.

Table 3. Truck speeds and locations for the crawl speed test NDE and Load Test
Location of the right wheel from the The GPR scans were post-processed and analyzed using RADAN
Path Run Speed (m/s) west edge of the deck (m) (2018) and GPR-SLICE (2018) software. Two-dimensional
P1 1 2.2 1.4 contour plots of the top reinforcement concrete covers found using
2 the 2.6 GHz GPR antenna are presented in Fig. 9(a). The cover
P2 1 7.3 depth found from the GPR was mostly in the range of 66–71 mm.
2 The as-built drawing specified a cover of 63.5 mm for the top mat
P3 1 21.2 reinforcement indicating that the rebars were placed with minimal
construction error and the deck has experienced negligible surface
wearing. As shown in Fig. 9(a), no concrete defects could be ob-
methodology is unique and more accurate than the industry-wide served from the GPR scans. One possible reason is that the cracks,
bridge load rating approach for the following reasons: (1) It used voids, or delamination should be at least 6.35 mm wide to be visible
the actual constructed top reinforcement clear cover for the deck in the B-scans from the GPR (Goulias and Adojam 2015).
instead of the as-built drawing prescribed value; (2) it considered The IE results on discrete data grids were plotted in 2-D contour
the actual inner core condition of the deck rather than only the maps, as shown in Fig. 9(b). Light shade indicates a high probability
wear and tear on the exposed riding surface of the deck; and (3) of delamination with 3% estimation accuracy (Impact-Echo Instru-
it considered partial deck-girder composite action, unlike the ex- ments 2001), while the dark shaded areas indicate sound concrete
isting prevalent practice of considering either full or no-composite without any debonding or delamination. Contours from both segments
action. show strong signs of delamination through the light shaded areas. The
delamination is more prevalent on the top of the girders compared with
the areas between the girders. Because most of the IE signals were due
Results and Discussion to large-amplitude and low-frequency flexural vibration, the delamina-
tion depths were expected to be within 102 mm from the top surface.
The following sections present results and discussions from the The phenomenon of flexural vibration is frequently encountered on
load tests and the NDE of the SB bridge. shallow flaws and delamination on concrete bridge decks. The IE

© ASCE 04022097-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Flowchart of the load rating method.
device cannot specify the exact delamination depth; it only shows the
potential presence of delamination below the minimum depth limit of
102 mm (Impact-Echo Instruments 2001).
The strain gauges and the rotational tiltmeters’ data from the
load test were analyzed to evaluate the load response of the bridge.
The raw strain data exhibited noise due to traffic-induced vibration.
This was eliminated by calculating the moving average between 10
data points, providing one data point for every second which was
sufficiently accurate for the evaluation purposes. This common
technique of data smoothening removed the unwanted fluctuations
(sharp peaks and dips) in the strain responses and provided filtered
data. The nomenclature used in labeling the strain gauges is as fol-
lows: the first number denotes the section, the second letter and
third numbers denote the girder number (B1, B2, and so on), and
the last letter denotes the location of the strain gauge (B: girder bot-
tom; T: girder top). Figs. 10(a and b) show the strain-time history
from Path P1 near the midspan for Runs 1 and 2. The strain re-
sponses from Girders B1 and B2 were maximum as expected
since the truck tires were on top of these girders. The strain across
other girders gradually decreased with an increase in distance from
the truck tires. Because Run 2 was a repetition of Run 1 from Path
P1, Figs. 10(a and b) yielded identical results. Figs. 10(c and d)
show the strain versus time plots for Path P2 Run 1 and Path P3
Run 1 near the midspan, respectively. The trends are similar to
Path P1 since Girders B4 and B7 showed maximum strain re-
sponses for Path P2 Run 1 and Path P3 Run 1, respectively.
© ASCE 04022097-8
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097
Fig. 10(e) shows the strain versus time diagram near the midspan
for the stop location test. Girders B4, B5, and B6 show the maximum
response as they were located near the position of the three trucks.
As can be seen from the trends in all the plots in Fig. 10, the strain
values started from zero, then increased to maximum values when
the trucks were at the midspan but did not return to zero after the
trucks left the span, leaving some residual strains. Also, some incon-
sistencies were observed between the two runs for all the paths. For
example, the strain gauges for Fig. 10(a) show a slightly higher strain
response than Fig. 10(b). The presence of residual strain and incon-
sistent results between two different runs could be due to some un-
intentional elastic slip of the foil strain gauges.
To evaluate the existing composite action between the deck and
the girders, the actual NA depths of the girders were calculated
using Eq. (1) from the measured top and bottom strain data. The
calculation took into account assumptions of pure bending, such
as (1) Linear strain profile since the girders were designed to be
within the elastic limit; (2) material homogeneity; and (3) plane
section remains plane after bending.
εB d

y = (1)
εB + εT
where
y = depth of the neutral axis from the bottom (mm); d = dis-
tance between the top and the bottom gauges (mm); ɛB = strain in
the bottom gauge (µɛ) (Absolute value); and ɛT = strain in the top
gauge (µɛ) (absolute value).
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 9. 2-D Contour plots: (a) rebar cover from GPR; and (b) possible delamination from IE.

Fig. 11 shows selected girders’ neutral axis depths for Path P1
Run 1, Path P1 Run 2, Path P2 Run 1, and Path P3 Run 1. The
runs from the other paths were ignored since they had either too
much noise or the strain data were too scattered to be considered.
The strain gauge data from the follow-up load test were ana-
lyzed similarly. The strain gauge data at the midspans of the girders
exhibited a lot of noise and vibration like the initial load test. This
was addressed by calculating the moving average between 10 data
points similar to the initial load test. Figs. 12(a–e) show the strain
response of the girders for the different paths and runs. Similar to
Path P1 from the initial load test, the strain response of Girders
B1 and B2 was maximum since the truck tires were near these gird-
ers [Figs. 12(a and b)]. The strains across other girders gradually
decreased with an increase in distance from the truck tires. Because
Run 2 was a repetition of Run 1 from Path P1, Figs. 12(a and b)
yielded identical results. Figs. 12(c–e) showed similar trends to
the initial load test results. However, the strain values from the ini-
tial load test were higher than those from the follow-up load test.

© ASCE 04022097-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

Fig. 10. Strain versus time plots: (a) Path P1 run 1; (b) Path P1 run 2; (c) Path P2 run 1; (d) Path P3 run 1; and (e) stop location test.

For instance, the values from the initial and follow-up load tests
were approximately 38 [Fig. 10(a)] and 26 [Fig. 12(a)], respec-
tively, for strain Gauge 2B1B. This was primary due to the slightly
heavier truck used in the initial load test.
Fig. 13 shows the location of the girder neutral axis from the
bottom for different paths and runs of the follow-up load test.
Comparisons of the NA locations between the initial and the
follow-up load tests and the theoretical values assuming full and
no composite deck–girder interactions are provided in Table 4.
Full composite action indicates a total interaction between the
deck and the girders with a common NA. In contrast, partial-
composite action denotes the end slip between the superstructure

© ASCE 04022097-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Girders’ neutral axis depths from the bottom.
elements. The NA location for a partial-composite girder will be
somewhere between the NA for a full-composite and non-
composite girder. The theoretical NA depths of the girder alone
and the composite section were calculated using Eq. (2) (AASHTO
2017). For the noncomposite girder, a T-section behavior was as-
sumed since the theoretical NA was located on the web of the
girder. The width of the compression face was taken equal to the
width of the top flange of the girder, and the distance from the ex-
treme compression fiber to the steel centroid was calculated from
the top of the girder. The NA calculation for the composite section
involved considering the width of the compression face of the
member equal to the effective width of the deck–girder composite
section and taking the distance from the extreme compression fiber
to the steel centroid from the top of the deck. Because the theoret-
ical NA for the full-composite section was located on the deck,
rectangular section behavior was assumed. The girder’s mild
steel contribution was ignored for both cases since the prestressing
strands provide the required primary flexural resistance for typical
prestressed concrete I-girder bridges.
A ps f pu − α1 fc′ (b − bw )hf
c= (T − section behavior)
f pu
α1 fc′ βbw + kA ps
dp
(2)
A ps f pu
c= (Rectangular section behavior)
f pu
α1 fc′ βb + kA ps
dp
where c = location of the theoretical NA from top of the deck/
girder; Aps = area of prestressing steel; fpu = specified tensile
strength of prestressing steel; α1 = stress block factor; fc′ = com-
pressive strength of concrete; β = stress block factor; b = width of
the compression face of the member; bw = width of the girder
web; hf = depth of the top compression flange; k = 0.28 (for low re-
laxation steel); and dp = distance from the extreme compression
fiber to the steel centroid.
It can be observed from Figs. 11 and 13 that some of the girders
showed similar NA locations from the initial and follow-up load
tests, while others showed deviations. For instance, the NA loca-
tions for Girder B1 were 100–105 mm and 105–110 mm for the ini-
tial and follow-up load tests, respectively. Similarly, Girder B5
showed comparable results from both tests. On the other hand,
© ASCE 04022097-11
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097
Girder B2 exhibited deviation, i.e., 90–95 mm and 120–125 mm
for the initial and follow-up load tests, respectively. This variation
could be due to a vibration-induced high noise-to-signal ratio of the
data, deviations of the trucks from the load paths, inconsistent
speed of the test vehicle, and temperature and/or humidity differ-
ences during the two load tests. It may be noted that the temperature
variation affects the resistance of the strain gauge and the connect-
ing wires, while humidity changes the mechanical properties of the
gauges and the adhesive layers (Lin et al. 2019; Khaled and
Mahmoud 2018). The depth of NA for a single girder was found
by averaging the depths from all load test paths, except those
where the trucks were too far from the girder to create a significant
response, and there was a considerable difference between the two
load test results. To improve the accuracy of the location of the
mean NA, highly scattered data were ignored. It can be observed
from Table 4 that there is a 50 mm discrepancy between the aver-
age NA locations from the initial and follow-up load tests. How-
ever, the instrumentation of additional girders during the
follow-up test yielded more reliable results. The follow-up load
test revealed only 59% deck–girder composite action, considering
1.45 and 0.53 m theoretically calculated NA depths for full and no
composite action, respectively. The IE results also supported this
finding by showing severe delamination on top of the girders.
Thus, it can be inferred that the excessive vibration of the bridge
was due to reduced stiffness of the superstructure induced by de-
lamination in the deck and partial-composite action between the
girders and the deck/panel system.
Load Rating
The following two cases were considered for the load rating:
1. Deck capacity in the transverse direction.
2. Girder capacity in the longitudinal direction.
Case 1: Deck Capacity
The flexural capacity of the deck was calculated using the GPR and
IE data following the procedure outlined here. The calculation con-
sidered 305 mm wide and 2.74 m long strips. The negative moment
region was found to be 0.76 m from both sides of the centerline of
the girder considering the contraflexure points of a continuous deck
system. The GPR data were used to estimate the concrete covers for
the top rebars near the girder lines. Fig. 14 shows the analyzed neg-
ative moment region (hatched area) on a portion of GPR data. More
than 85% of the negative moment region showed a top cover rang-
ing from 66 to 71 mm. Therefore, an average of 68.5 mm cover was
used to calculate the negative flexural capacity using the following
equation (AASHTO 2017):

a
Mn− = As fy d − (3)
2
where Mn− = nominal negative moment capacity; As = area of the
mild steel; fy = yield stress of mild steel; d = effective depth; and
a = depth of equivalent rectangular stress block.
The GPR data were not useful in calculating the deck positive
moment capacity since the deck bottom was not scanned. The pre-
cast prestressed concrete panels mainly contribute to the positive
deck moment capacity. The positive moment region was found to
be 1.23 m considering the contraflexure points of a continuous
deck system, and the related capacity was calculated using the fol-
lowing equation (AASHTO 2017):
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

Fig. 12. Strain versus time plots, follow-up load test: (a) Path P1 run 1; (b) Path P1 run 2; (c) Path P2 run 1; (d) Path P3 run 1; and (e) stop location
test.

a The percentage delaminations of the negative and the positive

Mn+ = A ps f ps dp − (4) moment regions were found from the 2-D IE contour plots
2
[Fig. 15] employing the procedure outlined in the “Load Rating
where Mn+ = nominal positive moment capacity; and fps = average Methodology” section. The former has 49%, while the latter has
stress in prestressing steel at nominal bending resistance = 11% delamination. It should be noted that the 2-D IE scans cannot
fpu(1 − k(c/dp)). estimate the depth of concrete delamination. To be conservative, an

© ASCE 04022097-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097

 average value of 30% delamination considering both regions is applied
to reduce both the positive and the negative moment capacities. For
instance, the deck theoretically calculated positive moment capacity
according to Eq. (4) was 158 kN·m/m. Considering the delamination
in the deck, the capacity was reduced by 30% to 110 kN · m/m.
Table 5 summarizes the moment capacities of the deck using the
GPR and IE data.
Although TxDOT allows both the Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) and Load Factor Methods (LF) for bridge rating,
the latter was used herein. According to the LF Method (AASHTO
2018), the moment rating factor of the concrete components can be
calculated using the following equation:

Deck Moment Rating Factor, DRF

Moment capacity − A1 × Dead load moment
= (5)
A2 × (Live load moment + impact)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where A1 = 1.3, A2 = 2.17 for inventory level, and 1.3 for operat-
ing level.
The moment capacities used in the load rating were taken from
Table 5 (modified moment capacity) and the negative flexural ca-
pacity governed the rating. The live load moment was determined
using HS-20 loading, including an impact factor of 1.3.
The bridge member ratings were calculated using Eq. (6) where
the rating factors were multiplied by the weight of the HS-20 vehi-
cle to find the allowable safe live load (inventory level) and the
maximum permissible live load (operating level). Table 6 shows
the summary of the deck moment rating factor and bridge member
rating.

Fig. 13. Girders’ neutral axis depths from the bottom, follow-up load Member rating = W × RF (6)
test.

where W = weight of the rating vehicle.

Table 4. Neutral axes locations
From the bottom of the girder
Theoretical full composite
Theoretical noncomposite
Average from the initial load test
Average from the follow-up load test
Because the governing deck rating for the inventory level was
320 kN, it can be inferred that the deck is safe to carry HS-20
Location (m)
load even with existing concrete delamination. However, due to se-
1.45 vere delamination, the serviceability and the durability of the deck
0.53 is of concern. During the follow-up load test, a few new cracks and
1.02 potholes were observed on the deck, as shown in Fig. 16, which re-
1.07
inforces the aforementioned statement.

Fig. 14. Negative moment region (hatched area) on a portion of the GPR contour.

(a) (b)

Fig. 15. IE contour: (a) negative moment region (hatched area); and (b) positive moment region (hatched area).

© ASCE 04022097-13 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097

 Case 2: Girder Capacity equation (AASHTO 2018):
The load rating of the girders was determined based on the 50
follow-up load test using Eq. (7) (AASHTO 2018). The average I= ≤ 0.3 (9)
L + 125
depth of NA from the follow-up load test was used to calculate
the girder capacity using the following equation (AASHTO 2017): where I = live load impact factor; and L = span length (in ft.;
one ft. = 0.3048 m).
Girder Rating Factor, GRF A comparison of the ratings employing the load test results as
against theoretical values assuming full-composite action between
Girder capacity − A1 × Dead load Moment
= (7) the girders and the deck/panel system is provided in Table 7. Be-
A2 × Live load Moment (1 + Impact) cause the governing girder rating for an inventory level is
490 kN, it can be concluded that the girders are still safe to carry
 
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

HS-20 load even after considering deck concrete delamination

a a hf
Mn = A ps f ps dp − + 0.85 fc′(b − bw ) hf − (8) and partial-composite action.
2 2 2

where Mn = nominal flexural resistance of the girder at midspan;

k = 0.28 (for low relaxation steel); c = average location of the Conclusion and Recommendations
NA from the follow-up load test (from top of the deck); b = effec-
tive width of the flanged section; bw = width of the girder top The following conclusions can be made based on the results of the
flange; and hf = depth of the top flange. study:
The dead load moment was calculated considering the self- 1. The current research employed combined NDE and static load
weight of the girders, slab, haunch, and barriers. The live load testing to diagnose a prestressed concrete girder bridge with ex-
was amplified by a multiple presence factor using the following cessive vibration. The NDE involved GPR and IE scanning of
the top of the deck to determine the reinforcement cover and lo-
cation and delamination in the deck, respectively. Two diagnos-
Table 5. Deck moment capacity
tic load tests were conducted one year apart to assess the
Moment capacity Average Modified moment condition and rate of deterioration in the test bridge. The
considering GPR percentage capacity considering study then proposed a novel load rating methodology incorpo-
Moment data (kN · m/m) delamination IE data (kN · m/m) rating the outputs from the tests, unlike the industry-wide con-
Positive 158 30 110 ventional code-based load rating practice that heavily relies on
Negative 85 30 60 information from as-built plans. The proposed method yields
more practical ratings and represents the current conditions of
the bridges more accurately than the conventional load rating
Table 6. Deck moment rating factor and bridge member rating method since it considers the existing actual rebar cover, deck
Rating level RF Bridge member rating (kN) delamination, and loss of composite action in the deck–panel
system.
Inventory 1 320
Operating 1.67 535 2. GPR scans of the bridge deck showed satisfactory top reinforce-
ment cover mostly conforming to the as-built plans, indicating

(a) (b)

Fig. 16. New pothole on the deck: (a) view from a distance; and (b) close-up view.

Table 7. Girder rating assuming partial and full-composite actions

Rating Rating factor assuming Rating assuming Rating factor based on load test Rating based on load test
level full-composite action full-composite action (kN) (partial-composite action) (partial-composite action) (kN)
Inventory 1.78 570 1.53 490
Operating 2.98 954 2.55 817

© ASCE 04022097-14 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097

 minimal construction error and little or no surface wearing. IE
scanning of the top of the deck revealed severe delamination
atop of the girder lines and at the CIP-precast deck panel inter-
face, indicating loss of structural integrity and stiffness of the
superstructure. The delamination was more pronounced on the
top of the girders with all CIP deck concrete than away from
the girders. The average location of the NA of the composite
girders from both load tests was on the web, which indicated
a significant loss of composite action between the girders and
the deck/precast panel system. Based on the follow-up load
test, only 59% composite action in the girders existed. Together
with the IE results, this leads to the conclusion that the unusual
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
vibration in SH 75 SB Bridge over Wilson Creek was caused by
the loss of composite action between the girders and the deck/
panel system and also the concrete delamination.
3. Average percentage concrete delamination obtained from the IE
scans and the actual reinforcement cover found through GPR
scanning were applied to determine realistic deck negative flex-
ural capacity. Furthermore, the experimental average NA was
used to calculate the girder capacity. Load rating incorporating
the results of the tests showed that both the deck and the girders
were capable of carrying HS-20 live load. However, due to se-
vere delamination of the deck and partial-composite action be-
tween the superstructure elements, the serviceability and
durability of the bridge are of concern.
The following recommendations can be made based on the study:
1. The proposed method used in this study may be effectively uti-
lized for other concrete bridges with serviceability issues and
concrete bridges in general.
2. A Finite-Element Model of the bridge may be developed and
calibrated with the experimental data to conduct a parametric
study that can be used to evaluate other bridges with similar
conditions.
3. The levels of vibration in similar bridges may be monitored on-
site over time to track the age-related change that may indicate
stiffness loss.
4. Effective retrofitting methods to address such serviceability is-
sues may be developed, including considerations for relative
benefit and cost.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study
appear in the published article.
Acknowledgments
The study was performed under a grant from the Texas Department
of Transportation (TxDOT). The following undergraduate students
from the university assisted in the load test and the NDE: Sean
Natelli, Jose Levya, and Adams Siphanh. Support in the form of
equipment, computer, and other resources from the university are
gratefully acknowledged.
References
AASHTO. 2017. Load resistance and factor design. Bridge design speci-
fications. 8th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO. 2018. Manual for bridge evaluation, 3rd edition, with 2011,
2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 interim revisions. C3. Washington, DC:
AASHTO.
© ASCE 04022097-15
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097
Alampalli, S. 2001. Correlation between bridge vibration and bridge deck
cracking: A qualitative study. Rep. No. FHWA/NY/SR-01/136.
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Special report
136, Transportation Research and Development Bureau, New York
State Department of Transportation, George E. Pataki, Governor/
Joseph H. Boardman, Commissioner.
Almomani, Y., N. Yazdani, and E. Beneberu. 2020. “In-situ evaluation of
FRP strengthening for corrosion deteriorated bridge bent caps.” J.
Bridge Eng. 25 (5): 04020019. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE
.1943-5592.0001541.
ASCE. 2021. Infrastructure report card. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Awall, M. R., T. Hayashikawa, T. Matsumoto, and X. He. 2012. “Human
response to traffic-induced vibration of horizontally curved twin
I-girder bridges.” In International Conference on Noise and Vibration
Engineering. (ISMA2012-USD2012). Leuven, Belgium: Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven.
Barker, M. G., and K. E. Barth. 2013. “Improved serviceability criteria for
steel girder bridges.” J. Bridge Eng. 18 (7): 673–677. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000402.
Barker, M. G., and J. Staebler. 2011. Serviceability limits and economical
steel bridge design. Publication No. FHWA-HIF-11-044. Washington,
DC: Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation.
Bettis, G. A. 2020. Bridge inspection manual. Austin, TX: Texas
Department of Transportation.
Bujnakova, P., J. Jost, and M. Farbak. 2018. “Load testing of highway brid-
ges.” In MATEC Web of Conferences 196, 02020, XXVII R-S-P Seminar
2018, Theoretical Foundation of Civil Engineering. DOI:10.1051/ma-
tecconf/201819602020.
Fountain, R. S., and C. E. Thunman. 1987. “Deflection criteria for steel
highway bridges.” In Proc., of the AISC National Engineering
Conference in New Orleans, 1–20. Chicago, IL: American Institute of
Steel Construction.
Gaunt, J. T., and C. D. Sutton. 1981. Highway bridge vibration studies,
Joint Highway Research Project. Rep. No. JHRP-81-11. West
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University & Indiana State Highway
Commission.
Goulias, D., M., and Adojam, L. S. 2015. Effective implementation of
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) for condition assessment & monitor-
ing of critical infrastructure components of bridges and highways.
Project number SP309B4R. Hanover, MD: State Highway
Administration Research Report, Maryland Department of
Transportation.
GPR-SLICE. 2018. GPR-SLICE v7.0 user’s manual. Woodland Hills, CA:
Geophysical Archaeometry Laboratory Inc.
Gucunski, N., F. A. Romero, P. Shokouhi, and J. Makresias. 2005.
“Complementary impact echo and ground penetrating radar evaluation
of bridge decks on I-84 interchange in Connecticut.” In Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Geotechnical Special Publication
133, edited by R. W. Boulanger, M. Dewoolker, N. Gucunski, C.
Hsein Juang, M. E. Kalinski, S. L. Kramer, M. Manzari, and J.
Pauschke, 1–10. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Gucunski, N., G. Slabaugh, Z. Wang, T. Fang, and A. Maher. 2008.
“Impact echo data from bridge deck testing: Visualization and interpre-
tation.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2050 (1): 111–121. https://doi.org/10.3141
/2050-11.
Gucunski, N., Z. Wang, T. Fang, and A. Maher. 2009. “Rapid bridge deck
condition assessment using three-dimensional visualization of impact
echo data.” In Proc. NDTCE’09, Non-Destructive Testing in Civil
Engineering Nantes. Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chauss’es
(LCPC).
Hag-Elsafi, O., and J. Kunin. 2006. Load testing for bridge rating: Route
22 over Swamp River. Albany, NY: New York State Department of
Transportation.
Hasan, M. I., and N. Yazdani. 2014. “Ground penetrating radar utilization
in exploring inadequate concrete covers in a new bridge deck.” Case
Stud. Constr. Mater. 1: 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2014
.04.003.
Hasan, M. I., and N. Yazdani. 2015. “Experimental study for quantitative
estimation of rebar corrosion in concrete using ground penetrating
radar.” J. Eng. 2016: 8536850.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Image Color Extract. 2016. Accessed January 1, 2021. http://www
.coolphptools.com/dynamic_css/doc.
Impact Echo Instruments. 2001. A self-teaching course and reference for
the impact-echo method and software. Version 2.2a. Ithaca, NY:
Impact Echo Instruments, LLC.
Kee, S.-H., T. Oh, J. S. Popvics, R. W. Arndt, and J. Zhu. 2012.
“Nondestructive bridge deck testing with Air-coupled impact-echo
and infrared thermography.” J. Bridge Eng. 17 (6): 928–939. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000350.
Khaled, K. M., and G. M. Mahmoud. 2018. “An investigation on the effect of
humidity on the zero signal of a strain gauge measuring system.” Univ.
Sci. 23 (1): 129–139. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.SC23-1.aint.
Kou, J.-W., and J. T. Dewolf. 1997. “Vibrational behavior of continuous
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 11/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
span highway bridge—influencing variables.” J. Struct. Eng. 123 (3):
333–344. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:3(333).
Lichtenstein, A. G. 1995. Bridge rating through nondestructive load test-
ing. Final Report NCHRP Proj. 12–28(13)A. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board.
Lin, Y., Y. Liu, and Y. Chang. 2019. “An investigation of the temperature-
drift effect on strain measurement of concrete beams.” Appl. Sci. 9:
1662. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9081662.
Lucas, J., T. Cousins, E. Brown, M. C, S. Sharp, R. Lane, and D. S. 2004.
Structural load testing and flexural analysis of the route 701 bridge in
© ASCE 04022097-16
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(10): 04022097
Louisa county, Virginia. Charlottesville, VA: Virginia Transportation
Research Council.
Matta, F., F. Bastianini, N. Galati, P. Casedei, and A. Nanni. 2005. In-site
load testing of bridge A6358 (Part 1) and of bridge A6101 and bridge
A6102 (Part 2). Jefferson City, MO: MODOT Research Development
and Technology.
National Bridge Inventory. 2017. US department of transportation.
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
Park, Y. S., D. K. Shin, and T. J. Chung. 2005. “Influence of road surface
roughness on dynamic impact factor of bridge by full-scale dynamic test-
ing.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 32 (5): 825–829. https://doi.org/10.1139/l05-040.
RADAN. 2018. RADAN 7 manual. MN43-199 Rev G. Nashua, NH:
Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc.
Raju, R. K., I. Hasan, and N. Yazdani. 2018. “Quantitative relationship in-
volving reinforcing bar corrosion and ground-penetrating radar ampli-
tude.” ACI Mater. J. 115 (3): 449–457.
Roeder, C. W., K. B. Barth, and A. Bergman. 2002. Improved live load de-
flection criteria for steel bridges. Final Report NCHRP 20-07/133.
Seattle: Univ. of Washington.
Zaki, A., M. A. M. Johari, W. M. A. W. Hussin, and Y. Jusman. 2018.
“Experimental assessment of rebar corrosion in concrete slab using ground
penetrating radar (GPR).” Int. J. Corros. 2018: 5389829. https://doi.org/10
.1155/2018/5389829.
J. Bridge Eng.